Energy Bill [Lords]
3:15 pm
Mr Norman Baker (Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)
In the last set of amendments, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury sought extra accountability and clarity. It is interesting that no matter where one stands on the nuclear issue, there is a common purpose in transparency and knowing exactly what is going on. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and I tabled the amendments. Clause 6(4) states:
''A direction must not give the NDA a responsibility . . . '',
and mentions some tightly defined groups:
''(a) a Crown appointee;
(b) the UKAEA;
(c) a publicly owned company;
(d) the NDA itself; or''—
it is something of a catch-all—
''(e) a person who has consented to the giving of the direction''.
That would appear to be anyone else on the planet, although the Under-Secretary will say that that is flippant. It seems unnecessary to include (e) in the terms in which the clause is written. If the Under-Secretary means British Energy, he should be upfront and say so.
In the debate on the previous group of amendments, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury rightly referred to the position of British Energy. Before we go further, one of the Ministers should make a statement on where that matter rests in respect of the European Commission. The Under-Secretary will know that the Bill will in theory allow the NDA to take on British Energy's liabilities, at an estimated cost of £3.3 billion over the next 10 years. Under the restructuring plan, the Government intend to underwrite the decommissioning and clean-up costs.
Officials from the DTI have admitted that the Bill is worded to cover British Energy's liabilities; it would also allow future private nuclear companies to be bailed out in respect of their waste and decommissioning liabilities. We are not, as hon. Members envisaged at an early stage, drawing a line under the issue, dealing with historical liabilities and trying to move on with a clean balance sheet. We are doing worse than that in a sense.
I agree that we should have the NDA, but we are allowing future private sector operators to offload their responsibilities on to the taxpayer. Is that the Government's intention? If the Under-Secretary wants to tell me that I have read the Bill wrong I will happily hear his explanation, but that is how I read it. It is contrary to the spirit of the Bill to allow that to happen. It is inappropriate for the Government to support a private sector company in that way. I ask the Under-Secretary to comment expressly on the complaint about the Bill that has been laid with the European Commission. Have his officials advised him that it is legal to go ahead in this form? If it is not legal my amendment should commend itself to the Committee.